- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:4000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 1217 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
541 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 15367
Never thought I’d live to see the vapid pseudo-pedantry of the fake less/fewer distinction brought onto the shores of .gs. A sad day.
|>>|| No. 15369
I, for one, got brought up for making that mistake on here about a decade ago. You obviously haven't been paying attention.
|>>|| No. 15380
Is posting a Sky News interview between Adam Bolton and a former Met chief superintendent really worthy of a two week ban for "racist shite"?
|>>|| No. 15381
"We can't have the Marxist BLM narrative, that this is an issue of right wing whites+police vs everyone else (when really it's a specific problem with afro-Carribbeans largely due to their massively disproportional rate of fatherlessness), being shattered by a calm rational former chief superintendent stating facts and his years of experience" said Adam Bolton and the mods.
|>>|| No. 15382
>being shattered by a calm rational former chief superintendent stating facts
Fucking hell. Actually beyond parody now.
|>>|| No. 15383
I seem to have a thing at the moment where I just post something and then other people run with it, like using the word "nondescript".
|>>|| No. 15460
On a tangent. Because it was perfectly fine for that reference. I hate that site. I find being subjective without any awareness of it to be the height of obnoxious. And it isn't just a I don't like the tone of it, it frequently favours post modernist views over those of science, which violates the very name of the site.
It is the epitome of the fallacy of appeal to authority.
|>>|| No. 15461
>subjective without any awareness of it
>frequently favours post modernist views over those of science
I don't understand what you mean by the former (it seems to be well aware that it doesn't cover topics in a neutral way) and you'll need to post examples of what you mean of the latter. I am interested in hearing more but to keep this out of /shed/ maybe you could start a thread elsewhere about the problems with RationalWiki?
|>>|| No. 15462
>maybe you could start a thread elsewhere about the problems with RationalWiki?
I don't think it warrants that much discussion. I'll simply state its history as I understand it. It stated as a site for debunking American anti-intellectualism (things like creationism and anti-global warming positions) and has mutated to speak righteously about socially-left positions over time.
It does not follow that because one is wrong the other is wholly truth but that is now the stance of multiple articles and what the site is now.
>you'll need to post examples of what you mean of the latter
I don't frequent the site to give a clear example now, but the 'health at every size' article previously has been an anti-scientific mess, talking about doctors as being fat-phobic for telling people about the health risks of their lifestyle. Now it takes a more cowardly middle ground describing it simply as a movement with some good points and bad rather than wholly favourable. It still has the air of equivocation about it lines like "There's considerable debate about how dangerous it is to be obese".
I hope this doesn’t spill into a long tangent I just wanted to explain what you inquired about.
|>>|| No. 15464
Looking at the history of that article it seems like the converse has true - while the article as of this year does take a more nuanced view of the movement, in the past it has been unequivocal about HAES being flatly pseudoscience.
|>>|| No. 15465
Yes, they were just one of the results that came up when I was searching for a reference to explain.
|>>|| No. 15467
As I said I hadn't looked at the site for a long time it could have changed at different times with edit wars.
I suspected something like that.
|>>|| No. 15480
Lads, not sure what happened. Website was dead for a long while, and now I seem to be banned for something heinous.
It say I was banned for "Transparently telling someone where to to find child abuse >>/eco/2821" in March 31st 2020. Now I probably post 3 times a year. I'm a massive lurker, so I am 100% sure I'm not a paedo, since I like redheads with big tits. I would appreciate it if one of the techy lads could explain what happened here. I am really confused. How did this happen? Can this be rescinded?
Apologies for the inconvenience. I mostly post about my dreams and I wanted to share one I just had.
|>>|| No. 15481
You probably accidentally ended up reusing an old IP address that was banned. We have a very very long list of bans now, I am actively removing many of them, because I have been tripping over the same thing now.
|>>|| No. 15483
How does that happen? I thought that if you have the same IP address (static?), then you would be using the same one for life. Is that not the case?
|>>|| No. 15484
That'll only happen if you're specifically paying for a static IP address, and many ISPs just won't offer that option in the first place. Some will give you the same address as long as your device is up, but it won't be guaranteed static.
|>>|| No. 15485
I vaguely remember this thread and think I might have even been the recipient of the ban. As you can see from the thread it's not as bad as the ban message implies, the lads were discussing what amounts to a small pencil sketch no more lascivious than a pin-up girl, the mods are just (understandably) overcautious.
|>>|| No. 15486
Why do i keep getting banned for conspiracy nonsense? I put it on the right board this time!
|>>|| No. 15487
I thought it was a shite thread but he's got a point. It was on the conspiracy board, I don't expect everything there to be of the highest quality.
|>>|| No. 15488
Because there was already a thread about it and you were spouting fucking nonsense. Also, learn to spell Lebanon.
|>>|| No. 15511
Sorry, mods. I didn't realise that posting in a thread that's fallen off the first page of /b/ was worthy of a lifetime ban, even if my 'bump' was saged and I only did it because another thread (>>/lab/4826) had jogged my memory of it.
|>>|| No. 15514
You call that supplication? pfft. I might have perma-banned you by accident tbh. I rarely give out bans longer than 24hrs unless it's spam. I'll remove for time served.
|>>|| No. 15516
I wasn't going to say anything, but yesterday I tried to post and I'd been banned for so long I'd forgotten the expiry date so the post went down the memory hole. I wouldn't have minded much if I'd threatened to kill someone or advocated for some manner of daft militant wogic action, but I didn't. What I did was pretend to be an MP and say "dw", again, while pretending to be an MP, which led to me being banned for a whole week and being told to "take an English class" (a distinctly American phrasing in my opinion but that's neither here nor there). The use of "dw" instead of "don't worry" was a deliberate linguistic decision to even more clearly show the unseriousness of my fictional Tory MP, this should have been very obvious to anyone who read it, assuming they'd ever attended an English class.
Also here's a mod saying "tbh" >>15514 so what exactly are the rules? If I'd said "imo" earlier in this post would I have been banned again? What about "ITT"? I really wasn't arsed until I tried to post last night and realised that the length of the ban over something so stupid was longer than my ability to remember I was banned, it's just so daft that I can't help but be irked by it.
|>>|| No. 15517
I think I have been banned here more for using unappreciated literary devices than I have ever been for being a knob head.
I resent it most for stifling creativity.
|>>|| No. 15520
Plenty long enough to have had joke bans, but they aren't usually a week and accompanied by the kind of comment that makes it sound like modlad just lost an argument with modmissus and is feeling passive aggressive.
|>>|| No. 15521
This attitude of 'everyone who gets banned is just a whinging cunt and deserves ridicule' is getting really tedious, teenlad. If you're a mod just unban him, I think everyone can do without the back-and-forth.
|>>|| No. 15522
I don't know if it expired or was removed but there was no such ban in the list at around 3pm.
|>>|| No. 15523
Yeah, I did check around that time too. I don't remember seeing that ban yesterday either.
|>>|| No. 15547
Banned for two weeks for 'numerous reasons' for an emo post. Could you please expand on the reasons, so that I have something to reflect upon whilst serving my punishment.
|>>|| No. 15554
As the guy he was responding to I don't see anything particularly harmful about this post. It was all in the context of me/my partner's personal sexual fantasy, not a social commentary. He didn't say anything I'd particularly even disagree with- He's right that these lizard brain primal desires do need at least paying lip service to keep yourself truly happy.
I don't think the bedroom is any place for politics and that has been the viewpoint of the many fisherfolk types I've talked to from the kink scene- If you start overanalysing the stuff that makes your naughty bits tingle because you read some Dworkin or what have you, you're inevitably only going to spoil it for yourself.
But I digress. He doesn't seem to want to contest the ban so badly anyhow.
|>>|| No. 15556
>He doesn't seem to want to contest the ban so badly anyhow
I was banned for 'ban evasion' for asking why I was banned. So I was hardly in a position to argue my defence.
If you hadn't turned up to argue my defence I would have just walked away as no one seemed amiable to even telling me what the problem was only banning me for asking.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 15561
"using sentry to stalk other users"
Excuse me but what? It wasn't hard to guess I was talking to the same lad, there's only three of us after all.
|>>|| No. 15562
Sometimes I don't understand this place. Taking the piss out of someone for being an edgelord saying they'll break the nose of the next person they say not wearing a mask properly results in a ban and the post being deleted.
However, making a ridiculously low quality thread on /b/ about the news story of someone getting their wife to film them fuck chickens, using a NY Post link that is based on an article from The Sun, when we definitely discussed this back in August when he plead guilty is apparently fine.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]